Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become increasingly important in the evaluation of spine surgery patients, interpretability may be limited by a patient's ability to recall pre-intervention impairment. The accuracy of patient recall of preoperative back pain, leg pain, and disability after spine surgery remains unknown. We sought to characterise the accuracy of patient recall of preoperative symptoms in a cohort of lumbar spine surgery patients.

We analysed consecutive patients undergoing lumbar decompression or decompression and fusion for lumbar radiculopathy by a single surgeon over a four-year period. Using standardised questionnaires, we recorded back and leg numeric pain scores (NPS) and Oswestry Disability Indices (ODI) preoperatively and asked patients to recall their preoperative status at a minimum of one-year following surgery. We then statistically compared and characterised patient recall of their pre-operative status and their actual pre-operative status. Patients with incomplete follow up or diagnoses other than degenerative lumbar stenosis were excluded.

Sixty-seven patients with a mean age of 66.1 years (55% female) were included in the final analysis. All cases were either posterior or combined anterior/ posterior procedures. Mean levels of surgery was 1.7 and 93.8% of all cases were instrumented. Mean duration of preoperative symptoms was 44.5 months (3.7 years). Preoperative vs postoperative PROs improved with regards to NPS back (5.2 vs 2.2, p= to 2 point difference), exceeding the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for NPS. This pattern was maintained across age, gender, and duration of preoperative symptoms. We also observed cases of symptom minimisation recall bias, and cases in which back and leg pain predominance were switched in severity during recall bias.

Significant recall bias of preoperative symptoms exists in patients undergoing spine surgery, potentially limiting accurate assessment and interpretation of PROs. An understanding of PROs and their limitations is essential to assess treatment efficacy of spinal procedures.

Electrical stimulators are commonly used to accelerate fracture healing, resolve nonunions or delayed unions, and to promote spinal fusion. The efficacy of electrical stimulator treatment, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials to establish the effectiveness of electrical stimulation for bone healing.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central to identify all randomised sham-controlled trials evaluating electrical stimulators in patients with acute fractures, non-union, delayed union, osteotomy healing or spinal fusion, published up to February 2015. Our outcomes were radiographic nonunion, patient-reported pain and self-reported function. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, performed data extraction, and rated overall confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Fifteen randomised trials met our inclusion criteria. Electrical stimulation reduced the relative risk of radiographic nonunion or persistent nonunion by 35% (95%CI 19% to 47%; 15 trials; 1247 patients; number needed to treat = 7; p < 0.01; moderate certainty). Electrical stimulation also showed a significant reduction in patient-reported pain (Mean Difference (MD) on the 100-millimeter visual analogue scale = −7.67; 95% CI −13.92 to −1.43; 4 trials; 195 patients; p = 0.02; moderate certainty). Limited functional outcome data showed no difference with electrical stimulation (MD −0.88; 95% CI −6.63 to 4.87; 2 trials; 316 patients; p = 0.76; low certainty).

Patients treated with electrical stimulation as an adjunct for bone healing have a reduced risk of radiographic nonunion or persistent nonunion and less pain; functional outcome data are limited and requires increased focus in future trials.